In a highly unusual preliminary examination Wednesday, the defense attorney spent more time asking questions than the prosecutor did in the medical child abuse case against Katie Hedrick.

During a preliminary exam, it’s the prosecutor who bears the burden of proof in order for the case to move to circuit court for a trial.

After a very long day, Gratiot District Court Judge Stewart McDonald ordered the case bound over for trial.

Dr. Lisa Markman, of the child protection team at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, took the stand shortly after 8:30 a.m. and wasn’t excused until 6 p.m. Markman is the one who diagnosed medical child abuse involving Hedrick’s daughter from the time she was an infant until she was nearly 5 years of age.

Advertisement

The testimony throughout the day was tedious and at times testy.

Markham maintained that Hedrick, 31, of Alma, had fabricated, induced or exaggerated illnesses in her daughter. She believes that the little girl underwent multiple tests, procedures and hospitalizations that weren’t needed.

The child was reported to have had seizures, ketonic hypoglycemia of childhood, infections and anemia at times. She underwent multiple tests including a liver biopsy, and had a feeding tube and four central lines inserted at various times, among other procedures.

Even though the little girl did show symptoms at times – including seizures - all the tests indicated that nothing was wrong with her. She had no seizure disorder or anemia or the childhood hypoglycemia.

Markman told the court she believes that at times starvation and the withdrawal of blood over a period of time caused some of the illnesses.

She suggested that Hedrick was to blame.

In his cross examination, Mark Satawa, Hedrick’s defense attorney, began asking specific questions, concerning the dates that a particular incident happened and what, for example, the levels of hemoglobin were on that date.

She was also asked if she agreed with the testimony of several physicians who had testified in the probate court hearing in 2011, although she had never heard the testimony.

Satawa’s goal appeared to show that the child had begun to improve while still under her mother’s care.

Markman said, in making her report and diagnosis, that she had conferred with all of the child’s doctors and many specialists.

She answered at times that she did not know the answer, disagreed with his supposition, couldn’t know the answer, would have to check the medical records, or asked him to rephrase the question.

At times, Satawa seemed to chastise or batter Markman, while the prosecutor from Wayne County, Carin Goldfarb, objected. The case is being handled in Gratiot County by a special prosecutor from Wayne County; the child’s father is a long-time Alma police officer who has worked with local prosecutors.

McDonald chastised both lawyers.

“This is a prelim,” he said. “I don’t need theatrics or animosity of counsel.”

And he had to do it again.

“There’s no jury here. You’re not trying to create a reasonable doubt,” he said.

He asked that the questions directed to Markman be limited to questions that are reasonable and relevant.

During a break, Markman was overheard saying, “Judge, I’d feel better if I wasn’t battered on the stand.”

McDonald then yelled.

“There will be no more theatrics,” he said. “I’ve never cited anyone for contempt of court. I don’t want you to be the first. This isn’t a circus.”

He said that Markman deserved respect and that, after a long day, his nerves were frayed, too.

“We are going to conclude this,” he said. Did everyone understand that?

It wasn’t until after 6 p.m. that Hedrick’s former husband, Jeff Hedrick, took the stand.

He said he’d discovered that during one time period, his daughter was supposed to be fed through the night, only his then-wife told him that the doctor said to not feed her at night for a few days.

He said he then contacted the doctor himself.

For the most part, he testified to the little girl’s blooming health and how she hasn’t been hospitalized once since she was removed from her mother’s care.

In reaching his decision, McDonald cited Markman’s report, which included her belief that the little girl’s hospitalizations would end if she is removed from her mother’s care.

He cited the Latin phrase for, “The thing speaks for itself.”

“(Markman) was saying, remove her from her mother and see if I’m right, “ McDonald said.” It appears the doctor is right.”

Calling the case “very contested, complex and serious,” McDonald said both sides were well represented.

He also ordered Hedrick’s personal recognizance bond continued.

Linda Gittleman can be reached at lgittleman@michigannewspapers.com or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/gittleman.